The Philosopher’s “God”

Summery:
Philosophers usually use the term “God” to refer to “the first cause” of the universe, or to the “intelligent designer.” Nothing else about the nature of God is implied. This can cause confusion during debates about the existence of God.

I posted a response to this weblog entry:
http://www.lubricatedthoughts.com/node/view/38#comment
which is someone’s counter-argument to this argument: http://www.scientificcreationism.org/article_11.html
which is an arguement for the existence of God.

My response (below) can be applied to the definition of “God” in most (or maybe all) arguments for existence of God.

I agree that the argument has problems, but it is still valid if by "God" one simply means any non-random cause. Most proofs for the existence of God only set out to prove the existence of "a first cause" or an "intelligent designer/creator" of the universe, which one can call God. It implies nothing else about the nature of God. So to refer to a non-random cause as "God," as you do, is fine for the purposes of this argument.

Your argument that an “nth dimension-dwelling entity” can be a non-random cause of the universe is fine, because for the purposes of this argument your “nth dimension-dwelling entity” can be the non-random cause and can be called God.

Your idea that the laws of physics could be a non-random cause for the universe does not make sense, because even if they are non-random, even they had to have a cause.